Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 9, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following: “(2) The risk referred to in subsection (1) means a risk greater than the risk facing children generally, when being adequately taken care of in a private home.”.

Section 11 states:

The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 58J: “58JA. (1) Where an authorised person is of the opinion, following the exercise of any of his or her powers under section 58J relating to a premises in which a registered provider is providing a prescribed early years service, that there is an issue of significant concern that is of such a nature that if it persists it will, or is likely to, pose a risk of harm to a child attending the service, he or she may issue a notice (in this Part referred to as an ‘improvement notice’).

The Labour Party amendment seeks to insert a new line that states, "The risk referred to in subsection (1) means a risk greater than the risk facing children generally, when being adequately taken care of in a private home." The justification for the amendment is to make a distinction between what is a formal childcare setting, operated on a community, for profit or not-for-profit basis, and a childcare setting that is a private home. I am repeating the points I made on Second Stage in that I am seeking proportionality for how any regulations that will be devised will be actually applied. We know that there are issues in respect of a childminder minding a child or children in his or her, and it is predominantly "her", home. If regulations are too strident, they may have a chilling effect. When an inspectorate is set up, and it is decided that all sorts of notices have to be put up and all sorts of modifications made to a person's home, it may act as a deterent to that person continuing in the sector that is the childminding sector per se.

I have no qualms whatsoever regarding what the legislation seeks to do as regards the safeguarding of children, and the issuance of notices and improvement notices, where glaring issues arise from an inspection. Nobody would be against any of that. I ask that common sense prevails and that the State, or Tusla the Child and Family Agency through its inspectorate, does not become so officious that it seeks to impose upon the childminding sector the same set of regulations that adhere to the formal setting of early years providers or childcare facilities. That is merely the justification for the amendment. I know it will be rejected but I ask for some further words of comfort from the Minister that a distinction will be made between the role of a childminder in society and that of an early years provider or childcare facility, such that it will not be always possible for somebody to make the types of modifications that are required. We do not want radical modifications to people's private homes where they are registered with the Child and Family Agency. We want common sense to prevail. We do not want the State bearing down too heavily and disturbing that relationship.

See this speech in context